Yes, it’s almost a quadrennial ritual to wring our hands over the choice. Campaigns are such merciless proctological exams that no one can be truly presidential before reaching office. When Franklin Roosevelt was a candidate in 1932, the columnist Walter Lippmann called him “a playboy.” Ronald Reagan wasn’t Reagan until he got shot shortly after becoming president. Bill Clinton wasn’t Clinton until he brought the country together in mourning after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore could be successful presidents, but their weakness as candidates prevents either from closing the sale. In a world where every ordinary child is defined as “gifted and talented,” these two are neither.
That became clear when I viewed some old debates on C-Span. (OK, I’m a political crackhead, but it’s the season.) Michael Dukakis at his worst in 1988 seemed more impressive than either Bush or Gore this time. George Bush the elder was a tough debater–much harsher than Gore and much smarter than his son. And of course Clinton was superb, smiling instead of scowling as he listened, using his body as an instrument of empathy, not intimidation.
Clinton. He’s the real third candidate in this year’s race. Gore is right not to campaign with him–too alienating to the soccer moms and contrary to Gore’s I’m-my-own-man message. But Democratic Party officials are furious with the Gore campaign for not using Clinton more to energize the party’s base in swing-state cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and Tampa. Going around the final turn, the reason for Bush’s lead among likely voters is that his backers are hungrier for power. It’s up to Clinton to help deliver the passionate message: Don’t Go Back to deficits and unemployment. And instead of going to the well one more time on Social Security, Gore needs to cut to the chase on the economy. During the debates, he never said, “Look, you would have rightly blamed us if the economy had tanked. How about a little credit?”
Comedy Central, the closest this campaign has to Swift, last week lampooned the punditry in the third debate: “Gore won, but Bush won.” Actually, both lost. Bush revealed yet again that he knows frighteningly little about the job. Of the 12 presidential candidates who have debated in fall campaigns since 1960, he was by far the least impressive on substance. (Even the comparison to Reagan is faulty; Reagan had spent 30 years thinking about public issues.) For instance, when Gore parried Bush’s “Big Government” attack by saying he had reduced the federal work force by 300,000, Bush failed to state the obvious–that those reductions resulted from the end of the cold war, not Gore’s efforts.
This happened time after time. When a single woman asked what the candidates would do for her, it was a slow pitch over the middle of the plate for Bush. Because she had no family, she stood to gain far more from Bush’s tax cuts than from Gore’s. But Bush wasn’t even familiar with the details of his own plan, and wandered off into something about “safe streets.” Then there was this Bush gem: “Insurance–that’s a Washington term.”
Gore, meanwhile, managed to turn what was supposed to be his strongest suit–debating–into a liability. Even the St. Louis debate, his best, was not so great. For instance, early on, Bush told a whopper: “I brought Republicans and Democrats together [in Texas] to get a patients’ bill of rights through.” In fact, Bush vetoed such a bill, and the right to sue HMOs passed without his help or signature. All in all, a much more serious fib than anything Gore has said. Gore may have known Bush was wrong here, but couldn’t be 100 percent sure. Chastened, perhaps, by the fear of exaggeration, he let it pass.
Less understandable is why he didn’t turn to Bush at some point and say: “You talk a lot about choice and trusting the people, not the government. So why don’t you trust women to make their own choices about their bodies instead of leaving it to the government?” Whom would that offend? Certainly not the suburban women Gore needs to win. He also didn’t help himself by failing–in debates and other TV appearances–to answer the questions directly. Voters sense when candidates are cramming in “message” instead of responding, and they resent it.
Bush responds more directly but also more implausibly. David Letterman asked about Houston being the most polluted city in the country. Bush’s answer: “We have a lot of cars. We’re a big city.” Letterman replied: “Well, it’s not as big as New York or L.A.”
When you strip everything away, the messages are these: Gore offers Clinton without the sex–a dull formula in a restless era of channel changers who crave the new. Bush offers to scrub the Oval Office and “stop the bickering” in Washington, though of course it hasn’t stopped (even in wartime) in 200 years. Neither offers much to change an election where the partisans are settling for second best and the undecideds–however they vote–are sure to remain uninspired.
